About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
CSPAN 15
MSNBC 11
MSNBCW 11
FBC 9
CNBC 1
CSPAN2 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
SFGTV2 1
WETA 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 78
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 78 (some duplicates have been removed)
and its impact on neighboring countries. then, a look at foreign policy challenges facing the obama administration. after that, a discussion about the state of women's rights around the world. >> if you have some hotshot who just got his phd in computer science from stanford, she is getting offers from all over the world. to say you can stay in some limbo for six years, that is not really competitive. >> congress can do a lot. you do not have to be efficient on your iphone or blackberry to understand the application of policy and what makes it work and does not. >> it is very difficult to make investment decisions and expect any kind of return on investment when you have no way to predict the future. our difficulty right now is that there is no consistency or certainty in in our policy decisions. >> the government's role in technology and policy, from this years ces international consumer electronics show. monday night on the communicators on c-span2. >> at age 65, she was the oldest first lady when her husband became president. she never set foot in washington. her husband, benjami
. it has played a role in moving people to see some of the backroom dealings of u.s. foreign policy. it has exposed people to think harder. i do think it played a role in leading people in tunisia and egypt to look at some of the cables and see what people already knew in their gut the soccer field in wikileaks about the alliances between u.s. foreign policy with the most repressive elements in those countries. let's hope that changes as the uprisings continue. anytime you can learn more about what is being done in our name, it is critical. that is part of what transparency is about. the freedom of information act is still not working well under the obama administration. some of that is pos/t 9/11. in los war will lead to a decline in information transparency access. anytime you can have less sequence -- secrecy, that is good. less secrecy is needed. it was handled at the outset by partnering with newspapers like "the guardian," traditional newspapers of distinction. wikileaks released documents around the world to newspapers in india, haiti, the middle east, latin america. it has had an im
office in 2009. for more now on this attack, the president's foreign policy, i'm joined by pulitzer prize-winning journalist of fox news contributor, judith miller, fox news middle eastern terrorism analyst. let me begin with you. this attack on -- this sneak attack during the secretary's tenure is kind of an art of vice, but the reality is that we still have enemies who are pursuingheir interests, even as we deny the force, the power, and the, if you will, the ubiquity of those forces. >> absolutely. i mean, the denial of the kind of need to continue the war and terror in this administration is really striking. hillary clinton wonders out, says farewell to her troops, takes a swipe at her critics and the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee has to point out, by the way, this calls for a sweeping review of the security of our diplomatic facilities, and she is never asked about it, does not have to respond to it. she is really amazingly adept at dodging hard questions. lou: adept, immune, inoculated, teflon, if you will. this secretary of state, despite the miles logged, almost
have a foreign policy that is coming apart. >>gregg: you were in the carter administration. all hands on deck the. >> the president himself, for ten, 15, 20 hours a day, in the middle of the greatest moments of this, involved himself personally. we were trying to get them out the day they flew home we were there all night and the next morning up until the time of the inauguration and the president was hands on. the notion this president was disengaged and talked to no one after the 15 minute meeting and went off the next day to a fundraiser? now we understand and this is causing the republicans today to start saying, patrol and -- start saying, graham and others, they will hold up the nomination. >>gregg: does it appear lights were out at the white house while an american diplomat was underattack and other americans? >> that is right. to me, the bottom line question that pat raises and you raised, too, do we have a coherent foreign policy and national security policy not only through iran and north korea but through the role of the united states in rooting out terrorism in north afric
. >> on foreign policy, we have a new secretary of state taking over today just as veep biden in his meetings with french president hollande in paris talk about the possibility of one-on-one bilateral talks with iran. let's take a look at what joe biden had to say. >> when and if the supreme leader and the iranians are prepared to discuss the essence of what is at the core of these embargoes, we're prepared to discuss. we're prepared to meet with them individually. >> iran, of course, a big topic in the chuck hagel confirmation hearings. a big source of dispute and wig conversations and negotiation with israel. john kerry over the weekend talked to simon peres and talked to abbas and also met hue. where do we stand now, and what is the timeline aring the different red lines with israel and with the possibility of one-on-one talks with iran? >> well, aun drae, i thought that the most important statement that the vice president biden made was when and if. they haven't really had conversations even with the totally of the european powers, but -- and iran since june. many thought that there would
to lay down for this? >> if i were the democrats and i'm looking at a republican whose foreign policy views are very popular with the likes of pat buchanan, might have some second thoughts about that. nice a guy as pat is, his foreign policy view ace little bit crazy. chuck hagel obviously holds some views, has empathies that are out of the mainstream of the republicans and democrats. we have two parts that agree on a very aggressive interventionist policy. >> besides president obama, i admit the president usually gets his own. i don't see anybody laying down for this guy. and i read today, okay, i read pretty your stuff. i read it from a lot of stuff. he is refusing to disclose his financials. particularly his foreign financials. i don't know how you get through under those circumstances. >> the democrats will support him. the more important issue for them is barack obama. barack obama is still the number one issue in politics today. and democrats need his support to win in 2014. so they're going to stick with whatever obama wants. it really is up to the president to find a way grace
box right? >> such a key component of obama's foreign policy has been we're going to slip in across borders, we're going to do covert actions kill who we need to kill as we view that. it is extremely -- you know, these kind of things, the way these things operate the machinery behind it when you read this memo, i mean this is what you would call, you know, a barnburner scoop. this is actually amazing stuff to see this written down in black and white the way the government does this. >> bill: again i think liberals progressives, would be raising holy hell if george bush and dick cheney -- if this were their policy demanding at least to know what the guidelines are. i think we should be equally strong, i believe in making that demand. even if it's president obama and joe biden. their policy. because this is a big deal. and you know -- >> if you think guys likewide-do that? -- wyden will do that? >> bill: he wrote letters saying we want to see all of the memos on drone policy and we want to see what the guidelines are. what rules you are following. and i think the american people deser
is that they are two policies now. they were two managements of foreign policy. one low level, and a different one strategic going out of the white house, and many thinks the white house had at the time objectives not really informed at the security council on the one hand or the state department. lou: let me ask you just straight up, yes or no. were you disappointed or disgusted at the conduct of the president of the united states and the secretary of state? >> i think that by trying to put this on the video, this was a diversion from what was happening on the ground, and they tried not to inform the american public before the elections. i think that's the con consensuf most of us, those of us who know what the jihadists were trying to do. lou: thank you for being with us. more on the rising tensionings in -- tensions in the middle east and president obama's response with the a-team next. the northeast hit by another big storm. in fact, a record storm. the blizzard update is next. bush whacked or hacked, however you want to say it, the bush family photos and secret e-mails of the former first fam
on the president on foreign policy issues. >> eric: thank you, chris. those interviews are on the "fox news sunday" program that airs later on today here on the fox news chabannel at 2 p.m. and 6 . on the fox newschannel. jamie? >> jamie: you know what's coming up. the doctors are in for their sunday housecall. they'll tell us about a surprising new study that's raising concerns about the effects of a common supplement. it's been linked to heart disease. we'll tell you what it is. stay tuned. [ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. [ laughs ] dad! dad! [ applause ] [ male announcer ] life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice. call or visit us online. we're ready to help. learn more with our free usaa retirement guide. call 877-242-usaa.
romney, just the economy. not foreign policy or social issues, very focused. the republican establishment loved that, crossroads spent 300 million-dollar and they lost. let the republicans and conservatives of the country run campaigns. >> and crossroads will spend tens of millions of more dollars in 2014 supporting more establishment candidates against people like todd aiken, murdock in indiana. how does this fit together? >> let me rise above the partisan bickering here. and let us reason together. i think one way that you can unite the party, which has had major success in integrating the more populous elements is agree on the buckley rule. people will try to support and nominate the most conservative candidate who can win. if you don't try to make statements by nominating extreme conservatives who can be sort of enjoyable and outside the populous but have no chance of winning in a general election, you don't go that way. classic example, delaware senate 2010. they threw away a seat. they would have had a moderate. a semi-liberal republican but this beats a hard line liberal democrat a
. it's a major component of his foreign policy. and listen, there is a difference between operational oversight, which is what congressman rogers was stressing in the interview with andrea mitchell, and legal oversight. and up until this point we really haven't seen any legal justification that the administration has presented for why it can target american civilians abroad if it has determined an imminent threat to the homeland. >> well, it was written today in the "new yorker" that the justification that they're using is a comparison to military troops going into cambodia in vietnam. that's how the nixon administration, they're making that comparison. i don't know how that's going to set with a lot of people. so i'm anxious to hear what mr. brennan does for justification tomorrow. sam? >> let me add one point to that which is the other thing the administration has done is well, we've been talking about this process, attorney general eric holder has been talking about this process. john brennan has been talking about this process publicly. we have outlined it. and i think there is a
. this is a major component of the president's war on terror. it's a major component of his foreign policy. and listen, there is a difference between operational oversight, which is what congressman rogers was stressing in the interview with andrea mitchell, and legal oversight. and up until this point we really haven't seen any legal justification that the administration has presented for why it can target american civilians abroad if it has determined an imminent threat to the homeland. >> well, it was written today in the "new yorker" that the justification that they're using is a comparison to military troops going into cambodia in vietnam. that's how the nixon aw incredie changes. ri and i think there is a role for congress to play. and i would add even for the american public to play to a certain extent in judging what kind of legal justifications the administration is using. i understand the administration doesn't want to set a bad precedent here, but these are weighty matters. >> colonel, what kind of intel are we getting on the ground? i mean we have to be sure that we're not kill
an important foreign policy shift both in terms of process and engagement in the region. when i say process i say that it is grounded for the first time in our history in the bedrock of parliamentry consent, public legitimacy, and many stakeholders that matter being onboard in the manging of foreign policy. so this is a first for pakistan, including our relationship with the united states, which is now pretty much run by parliamentry guidelines, and we move affording to those now, which does empower us to take decisions that are sustainable, we hope. and we look for a relationship that is long lasting and not just a function of our relationship with the united states and pakistan as it transitions after the region. >> thank you for that. did they offer you breakfast? >> yes, they did. >> so busy taking notes. let me ask you one or two and move to my colleagues. you were early in offering congratulations to john kerry. i wanted to ask you about the impact if any you see kerry moving in as secretary of state is going to have. as you know the "wall street journal" ran an oped piece last week tal
against foreign persons, i think, is troubling from a moral, ethical, and policy point of view. but i don't subscribe to the fact that it's illegal under u.s. law. and that's the law that the president is bound by the constitution to follow. my focus has been primarily, and i'm not saying it's a good program. i'm just saying that i think it's a moral policy question rather than a legal one primarily for the president. i focus primarily on the targeted killing of american citizens, which does bring into play the united states constitution and the rule of law in the united states. and i'm very troubled about that aspect of it. >> can you help us understand how this official program of targeted killing works? >> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in w
for both the law, for our foreign policy, and for civilians in a killing program that we should be doubly concerned in getting that information out there, so that we make sure that we don't make those mistakes or we correct them when we do. >> let's close with a brief discussion on the issue of surveillance and eavesdropping. on the 31st of december, the president extended this controversial wiretapping act until 2017. the f.i.s.a. act? >> foreign intelligence rveiance act. >> rig. are you both troubled by the seeming lack of oversight for this extension of surveillance and wiretapping of suspected terrorists in this country? do you think there's a real danger here? >> i think there's a tremendous danger. and i think, you know there has been a codification of the expansion of power under george bush. and so any time that congress or through policies that are happening now that we're institutionalizing, codifying, making hard in our infrastructure things at we lirally thkable n or 11 years ago is of tremendous concern to us. it shows our slippage. and we don't always realize that that's wh
and it is the lasting legacy of foreign policy. >> and that leave mes with the question because of so many ideological differences of president obama and president bush, but not on this. it suggests possibilities that presidents are just presidents and they always expand their kind of war powers which is one possibility, and the other is that the president nose something that i don't know about what constitutes threats to the national security, and the third is that well, on this one question, this president is just as hawk ish as george w. bush and any way to adjudicate the possibilities of what war means to the obama administration? >> well, i think that, i think that is absolutely right, it has been a continuation of the bush administration policies, and yes, administrations always try to push the outer bounds of the authority. but one thank is clear is that the laws of war have not changed even if the practice has changed. there are really three reasons that a country can, a state can use force outside of its borders. one, if it is the victim of an armed attack and second if the u.n. security coun
troubled by it, as someone who's served in the white house on foreign policy. what bothered you the most about the way it was put together? >> let's separate it into two sets of issues. one is the criteria for when the united states does say a drone attack and the other is the process by which we make the specific decision. the criteria are simply not sustainable. for example, there's three. the first with is that it has to be imminent, the idea that the terrorists planning an attack are about to launch an attack. we don't know that. so you can't meet the first threshold you set. we don't wait till it's imminent because we never know. and that's clear if you look at all the drone strikes we've done, by the time someone has made the career choice to be a terrorist, we decide that they qualify as a potential target. indeed we go beyond that. so-called signature strikes, you target people who appear to be doing the sorts of things that terrorists tend to do. we set up criteria that we ourselves do not meet. we then say it has to be the capture is infeasible. you don't want to have to captur
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no. >> my reference to the -- >> are you going to answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like the answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today. >> well, let the record show you refuse to answer that question. >> ana, the viewers may not know the history between hagel and mccain. they were close friends in 2000. not so in 2008 when it was clear that hagel's wife was supporting obama and not mccain. was that personal? >> i don't think so at all. anybody who ever saw mccain grill donald rumsfield knows that this is john mccain. this is his job. they are there to advise and consent, not to rubber stamp. if they are not going to get the scrutiny and tough questions now, then when? >> why was he so much tougher on chuck hagel than john kerry? >> because there are so many inconsistenci
as a kid. went off and served in the military, and was a foreign policy specialist in the senate. chairman of the foreign relations committee. he's basically been campaigning, subtly, for this job, all along. and you can just see the comfort level that he had there. you know, those of us who have covered him in politics, he's kind of awkward, a little bit difficult. you remember the situation with the wind surfing. you know, i voted for the $87 billion before i voted against it. he has some awkwardness in the retail politics area. he has no awkwardness when it comes to diplomacy. and you can see him really enjoying, flying around capitals of the world. this is what john kerry was meant to do. >> dana milbank of "the washington post," good to see you. >>> senator bob menendez breaking his silence. it is time now for the poly-side bar. >> the smears that the right wing have been pushing since the election, and it's totally unsubstantiated. it's amazing to me that anonymous, nameless, faceless individuals on a website can drive that type of story into the mainstream. the bottom line is all of
to president obama's foreign policy in as far as being able to take out terrorist where is he doesn't have to send u.s. troops and john brennan was an architect of that strategy. of course, controversial because there are innocent civilians who can get caught up in that as "the new york times" written about earlier this week, as well. that's obviously where some of this is coming from but the question americans face is would you rather have american troops and boots on the ground in yemen and pakistan or the unmanned drones taking on this responsibility? >> thank you very much. i appreciate you changing conversations in the middle of everything. we'll have plenty of time i'm sure to talk about chuck hagel. meantime, let's take the audience to the senate hearing and senator dianne feinstein. >> because of the added importance of having steady leadership at an organization that conducts most of its business outside of the public arena. intelligence is critical to the successful draw down in afghanistan, to the brutal war going on within's syria's borders, across north africa where the attack
't have a foreign policy that is delivered by leak to the american press. it's dangerous. we know it has cost us sources. we know it cost us operations. we know it put in jeopardy, at least a part of the time members of our special forces units that may have been involved in those raids. we had to protect their families. so it is really, really important that they get the notion that yes, foreign policy is hard but you have to sell it in a way that does not disclose classified information. and that's been concerning it me. i hope that they have gotten that message. i think today we'll hear a lot about that when the senate does their questioning of mr. brennan. jenna: congressman, thank you very much for the time today. i know it is a busy one as always for you in capitol hill. we always appreciate you joining us, thank you. >> thanks, jenna. jon: fascinating topics on the front burner today. one lawmaker calls senator marco rubio of florida a lynchpin in getting immigration reform done. we're going to take a look why that may be the case coming up. jenna: now a fox news weather alert for
of the narrative of what the rest of his foreign policy was like. >> sure. there would be hearings in the senate and in the house and it may be not in the house. under boehner but certainly there would be hearings and demands for full disclosure. >> there would be more foreign anger about it. it sort of goes to show, you know, how much president obama sort of changed the idea of, you know, of what he is about allows him perhaps more freedom to do some of these things than bush might have had given sort of how he is -- the beginnings of his foreign policy. >> the whole question of drones in the obama administration, are we letting him get away with stuff that we would never let george bush get away with? the question reed, somebody one to think about. 866-55-press. you know the toll-free number. the president is pursuing this double agenda right now, the sequester still loom can. i want to get to that in just a moment. but right now, he will give a speech on guns and a speech on immigration reform. he is pushing both. how do you assess the chances of bot
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 78 (some duplicates have been removed)